where are the Arabs happy?

More than 200 years ago, Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume put his finger on the process.

Fear and ignorance, Hume concludes, are the true source of superstition.

Interesting observation but I would say that as I concur.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Fear and ignorance, Hume concludes, are the true source of superstition. They lead a blind and terrified public to embrace any practice, however absurd or frivolous, which either folly or knavery recommends.
Posted by Pete

FEAR AND IGNORANCE, kind of like the reaction we see here, concerning

Obama
Muslums
Hispanics
Liberals
Teachers
Californians.........
 
Last edited:

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Doug,

My friend, it's good to hear from you, I was starting to get a little worried, wondering if you were OK!
 
Last edited:
Pete,

I am not going to "poo poo" your zeal in listing those articles because I do believe all should have an open mind as to the cause or existence of accelerated global warming. My only caveat is to ferret out those articles that were published in peer-reviewed journals and weight them more so than the others. Magazine articles, press releases, book chapters and even some conference talks should be viewed with some scepticism. (Just the PhD in me I guess). BUT, the same is true for the "pro" GW articles.
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
Doug,

Hay guy, it's good to hear from you, I was starting to get a little worried, wondering if you were OK!

Stuck in the wilds of SW Kansas for 5 weeks, lost my corkscrew and was forced to subsist on mere food and water for the entire duration :laugh: .

Good to be back in civilization!!

Cheers from Doug!
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Kansas, Oh my!

Doug, there was recently a discussion here about guitars, I kind of figured you would like it. I'm not sure what thread it was but it's only been a few days.
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Pete,

I am not going to "poo poo" your zeal in listing those articles because I do believe all should have an open mind as to the cause or existence of accelerated global warming. My only caveat is to ferret out those articles that were published in peer-reviewed journals and weight them more so than the others. Magazine articles, press releases, book chapters and even some conference talks should be viewed with some scepticism. (Just the PhD in me I guess). BUT, the same is true for the "pro" GW articles.

I agree Doc, true science is based on scepticism, seeing a small sample of what has happened to the earth's climate and turning it into Dogma is not science.
IMHO.
 
Worried about climate change/global warming, not terrorism, not national/state debt, not unchecked ILLEGAL imigration, not unchecked spending, etc, etc, Hmmmm...............
 

Keith

Moderator
+1 to all the +1ers! :thumbsup:

This thread just proves no-one knows what's happening. To invite individuals to actually attend scientific conferences sounds interesting but if they have not been trained to assimilate and sort information in a logical manner they would likely come away more confused than when they went in even if they understood at least some of the science which they probably wouldn't.

There is not a trustworthy enough vehicle in the world to explain the CC science to the common man in a way that he would a) believe, or b) understand.

By 'common man' I mean average Joes like me with minimal education and dirty hands who make up the vast majority of the global population. We are the 'swing voters' of society, it's us you have to convince not the clever buggers like lawyers, scientists, doctors, engineers or anyone else who values their own opinion above others because it's in their professional nature to do so.

None of the arguments are reaching these ears and these are the voices who can make or resist change - or do we have to sit back and allow our scientific 'betters' to dictate to us?

As I recall, in a democratic society, we elect leaders to speak for us, and if we have decent leaders we need not concern ourselves with any other task than our personal survival except to decide who is the right representative.

Referendum is a buzz word in Europe but it is a pointless and undemocratic process and a tool used by Governments to avoid making unpopular decisions. If we do not trust our politicians to make the right choices for us and clearly many of us don't because of the immoral and illegal behaviour of many the past decade, why should we trust the views of unelected clever buggers who's very words can around like gobbledy gook and who's extremely alarmist views often frighten the shit out of everyone?

No-one (at least at my level) in my neighbourhood understands this issue. No-one talks about it at street level because everyone is busy trying to survive the effects of 15 years of inept and dishonest Government. No-one even wants to talk about it because we know (at our level) there is nothing that we can do as individuals to change almost anything, so why bother wasting breath?

I am not an advocate for or against the perils or not of climate change.

Am I worried about it? Hell no.

Will the Earth die because of man? Probably not.

Will Man die because of the Earth? Probably not.

Will Man die because of Man? Probably.

To tackle any of the world's problems piecemeal seems to me a pointless excerise when you could absolutely affect at your own level future world planning, and by that I mean electing the right representatives that DONT have agendas, flavours, wings and rich daddies.

Almost every debate on any issue that concerns us ends up with a left/right harangue which then means stalemate.

And that is the REAL bullshit.

Signed: A common barely educated man like millions of others who have far more important life changing things to think about before we even get to...you know what..like putting food on the table today. :)

"al salamo alaykom wa rahmat allah wa barakato"

Just keeping thread on topic..
 
Keith,

I think you've raised some good points. It's a shame that the GW debate made the popular press and media too quickly, before a true consensus within the scientific community was established. I reflect back to my biomedical research life when I studied the mechanisms of aging on the brain's control of endocrine functions. You didn't hear anything about this science in the popular press and I can't imagine how the press would have twisted our findings, what conclusions the "non-scientist man" would surmise. Our research findings stayed within the scientific literature as it should. Only until science is on the brink of validating theory, making a breakthrough so to speak, is the time to "go public".
 

Keith

Moderator
Thanks Doc, that is the brightest statement I've heard yet and makes a lot of sense. Presumably in the rush for fame, the objectives were lost in the media feeding frenzy.

I am slightly appalled at the size of scientific egos in all of this. You'd think they would act in the general public interest instead of their own self agrandissment..

'Divide and conquer' seems to be the global strategy applied to civilian populations the world over be it scientific or political. Well, they've got the divide bit right - while we are busy squabbling amongst ourselves endlessly debating the undebatable in a huge circular discussion, I'll bet they are scheming to release Part II of the Horror Story - "The Planet Has Only Days To Live Before Assured Destruction Unless We Place a Nuclear Device On the Moon"

Well of course that's garbage isn't it and so is much of the current and recent past debate on Climate Change.

I would be happy to be involved in overt action that has a bearing of some of the causes of Climate Change due to Co2 production (if it's true that is) but I would give it a title that everybody could enage with, namely

War on Waste. OK Wow then :laugh:

Almost everything you touch, use, sit in, sit on, drive, and generally rely on for your everyday existence comes from oil - why they keep pointing at automobiles as the great polluter escapes me, when the packaging industry has much to answer for. Almost everything we use utilises plastics of some kind and that is petro-chemicals.

For example, on my birthday, I received a jokey toolkit made of chocolate - useless I know (you see? I've got great friends who value me highly :) ). Not only was the chocolate shit, worse even than a Hershey, but the plastic packaging was enormous and totally unnecessary. Because it is the "wrong" kind of plastic it cannot be recycled so goes into landfill, which, combined with a billion babies disposable used nappies produces the kind of toxic brew they call methane in such quantities that it makes cows fart look like a gentle summer breeze.

There is absolutely no justification for this obscene amount of packaging based on petro chemicals and yet no one seems bothered. Well, I am and it's a good (and easy) place to start a personal involvement in my W.o.W. and if that leads to some positive action to restrict the use of same, then I will have done my bit to thwart the rise and rise of the Black Devil C02 which would be far more useful than endlessly spouting hot air about a mumbo jumbo science that I do not and never will understand.

I will then be Guilty of Not Doing Nothing as opposed to Not Guilty of Not Doing Nothing if you get my drift..:)
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Not only was the chocolate shit, worse even than a Hershey,
Posted by Keith

OK Keith, now you have gone too far! I happen to love Hershey Chocolate. I think you owe the good people of Pennsylvania an appology!:)
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
Sign on my kitchen wall:

"I'd stop eating chocolate, but I'm no quitter!"

Chocolate is it's own food group, IMHO (as is cheesecake)!!

Jim, do we need to send Spike and Lefty (both radical conservatives, I might add) to have a talk with our esteemed friend, Keith? I mean, after all, too far is........well, TOO FAR!!! :laugh:

"Tongue in cheek" Cheers from Doug
 
Last edited:

Keith

Moderator
I didn't say Hershey was the worst did I? OK Penn guys "Hershey is NOT the worst Chocolate in the World - it is designed purely for the American Palate and is therefore a mere shadow of the World's acknowledged Choc Champs - the Swiss"

Cuckoo

I was quite shocked actually to see the word chocolate used in the same sentence as the word Hershey. Isn't that a classic Oxymoron?

Just winding you up guys really but I don't like Hershey Bars and it's obviously because my coarse European (not for long though ha ha) palate brought up on a diet of soggy chips and warm beer is not delicate enough to appreciate the subtle Corn Starch notes of classic saddle soapy Hershey flavours.

How's that?

By the way, is there any plastic in Hershey wrappings? :evil:
 

David Morton

Lifetime Supporter
Hershey’s Special Dark Chocolate takes a bit of beating. I would put it just below Lindt.
Mars Bars have a multitude of uses. In Scotland they fry them. In Redlands - a small house in West Wittering they do something else with them.:rockstar::rockstar::drummer::rockstar:

Don't go there Keith..........
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
I submit that the Arabs are not happy due to the fundamental lack of Hershey chocolate......and vodka!
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
I'm still interested in what parts of the scientific literature (not blogs, or news stories) you've read in reaching your conclusions.

I agree Doc, true science is based on scepticism, seeing a small sample of what has happened to the earth's climate and turning it into Dogma is not science.
IMHO.
 
Back
Top